Best Within

[Newberry]

This is in response to the thread: Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness

I can see I have been approaching this all wrong. So let me tell you a different kind of story.

Several years ago an open men’s doubles tournament was being held at the tennis club I taught at. The first seeded team were the reigning Men’s 35 and over champions of Southern California. I could have found a peer to have as a partner, or a strong 17 year old. But, there was a little skinny kid, 12/13 year old, and he could weld magic with his racket; he reminded me of the country song about the guy who could out fiddle the devil himself. From all the players at the club, he would have the most benefit to gain from playing in the tournament. So he and I teamed up.

Introducing kids into Men’s tennis is a bit tricky--the strength of the play can pulverize a kid, no matter how good they are. And there was one other problem: the kid had idolized great players from the past, and he was switching from a two-handed backhand to a one-hander. Even at 12/13 he was a little late to make so profound a change. So he walked onto the court as if he had his left arm tied behind his back.

He and I made a pretty good team and we worked our way through the draw until we got the semi-finals, the final four teams. Where we met the No. 1 team. They were a seasoned team, and one of them was a Goliath, 6'3", lefty, and he hit the ball at you like there was ton of bricks behind his shot.

These guys were putting all their strategy and strength behind destroying the kid’s yet to be formed one-handed backhand. There was a point in which the kid was crying. He knew if he could only go back to using his two-hander, he might be able to counter the onslaught. Even with the relentless attack on the kid’s weak side we were holding are own in the match, we only needed a fraction more of the something extra to turn the match. We both knew that if he went back to his two-hander, that would give us what we needed to win. All I need do was tell him to use his two-hander. But I knew why he was changing over to the one-hander-- he wanted to follow in the footsteps of his tennis heroes. It was now or never. If he didn’t keep to the one-hander, he would never have the fortitude to make the change. Through the tears and frustration, he kept to the one-hander, even though we both wanted to win.

In one rally, I put up a poorly executed defensive lob right into the smashing zone of the Goliath, and my tiny partner was left unprotected right in the path of the hardest, fastest smash of the day, aimed right at his chest. Faster than you could blink, the kid ducked, whipped his racket around to protect his face, connected with the ball, ricocheted the ball with an increase in velocity for an outright winner. It was the most spectacular shot I had ever seen in tennis.

Unfortunately, we didn’t win. Later that day I told the kid that he was a genius, and he told me that he wasn’t so good in school. “I don’t mean in school, you are a tennis genius. You have that rare ability to accomplish anything you want in this game.” I said.

The story is true. And the kid was Pete Sampras. At this moment, he is arguably the greatest male tennis player that ever lived.

------

You see, I think there is greatness all around us, yet too many people influenced by altruistic ethics take talent for granted, and don’t appreciate how fragile and difficult it is for a potential great to hold to their vision, to feel it is real. I made the choice a long time ago to personally bring out my best and sympathize with others that feel likewise.

[Roger Bissell]

This is in response to the thread: Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness

I can see I have been approaching this all wrong. So let me tell you a different kind of story.

Several years ago an open men’s doubles tournament was being held at the tennis club I taught at. The first seeded team were the reigning Men’s 35 and over champions of Southern California. I could have found a peer to have as a partner, or a strong 17 year old. But, there was a little skinny kid, 12/13 year old, and he could weld magic with his racket; he reminded me of the country song about the guy who could out fiddle the devil himself. From all the players at the club, he would have the most benefit to gain from playing in the tournament. So he and I teamed up.

Introducing kids into Men’s tennis is a bit tricky--the strength of the play can pulverize a kid, no matter how good they are. And there was one other problem: the kid had idolized great players from the past, and he was switching from a two-handed backhand to a one-hander. Even at 12/13 he was a little late to make so profound a change. So he walked onto the court as if he had his left arm tied behind his back.

He and I made a pretty good team and we worked our way through the draw until we got the semi-finals, the final four teams. Where we met the No. 1 team. They were a seasoned team, and one of them was a Goliath, 6'3", lefty, and he hit the ball at you like there was ton of bricks behind his shot.

These guys were putting all their strategy and strength behind destroying the kid’s yet to be formed one-handed backhand. There was a point in which the kid was crying. He knew if he could only go back to using his two-hander, he might be able to counter the onslaught. Even with the relentless attack on the kid’s weak side we were holding are own in the match, we only needed a fraction more of the something extra to turn the match. We both knew that if he went back to his two-hander, that would give us what we needed to win. All I need do was tell him to use his two-hander. But I knew why he was changing over to the one-hander-- he wanted to follow in the footsteps of his tennis heroes. It was now or never. If he didn’t keep to the one-hander, he would never have the fortitude to make the change. Through the tears and frustration, he kept to the one-hander, even though we both wanted to win.

In one rally, I put up a poorly executed defensive lob right into the smashing zone of the Goliath, and my tiny partner was left unprotected right in the path of the hardest, fastest smash of the day, aimed right at his chest. Faster than you could blink, the kid ducked, whipped his racket around to protect his face, connected with the ball, ricocheted the ball with an increase in velocity for an outright winner. It was the most spectacular shot I had ever seen in tennis.

Unfortunately, we didn’t win. Later that day I told the kid that he was a genius, and he told me that he wasn’t so good in school. “I don’t mean in school, you are a tennis genius. You have that rare ability to accomplish anything you want in this game.” I said.

The story is true. And the kid was Pete Sampras. At this moment, he is arguably the greatest male tennis player that ever lived.

------

You see, I think there is greatness all around us, yet too many people influenced by altruistic ethics take talent for granted, and don’t appreciate how fragile and difficult it is for a potential great to hold to their vision, to feel it is real. I made the choice a long time ago to personally bring out my best and sympathize with others that feel likewise.

SEVERAL years ago???? ~Several~ years ago you were playing with a 12/13-year-old Pete Sampras?

Uh-huh. Yeah, and I'm not about to become 60 (next Friday), I'm merely forty-nineteen. :-)

Pete Sampras is 36 years old (born summer 1971). You were playing with him 23 years ago. In my book, that's "several" PLUS TWENTY.

As Paul Harvey would say, "And now you know THE REST of the story."

Nice story though.

REB

[Newberry]

Thanks for doing the math Roger.

I was the assistant pro under Ross Walker, he is now in Texas, for a brief two years starting in late 1984 at the Jack Kramer Club, I was 28 then. Fortunately, for my art it is the only full-time working gig I had in the last 30 years.

I don't know who Paul Harvey is.

Glad you like the story, though it doesn't appear that way. ;)

Cheers,

Michael

Edited June 20, 2008 by Newberry

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

It is a good thing to foster talent. I do it myself constantly.

I also liked the story.

I am confused, though. Why is this thread a response to the other thread? What is it that you are responding to?

Are you insinuating that you need to make a thread showing that fostering talent is good as a response to a thread that promotes the idea that fostering talent is bad or unimportant? It doesn't, but your insinuation seems to be this. Which is why I am asking.

I am not trying to nitpick—just bring everything out into the open so that future bad vibes emanating from insinuations can be avoided.

For the record, I like the idea of opening a thread to discuss fostering talent. It is a great idea on its own merits.

Michael

[Newberry]

Why is this thread a response to the other thread? What is it that you are responding to?

I didn't relate to the actions in the morality story from the other thread. Another element missing was the kinds of people I relate to. Like you, I take principles seriously, as you recounted how you helped the actress (which I would not have done.) So I recounted an event that shows how I react in real life.

Are you insinuating that you need to make a thread showing that fostering talent is good as a response to a thread that promotes the idea that fostering talent is bad or unimportant?

Not exactly, though I did see the morality tale on the other thread as typically altruistic. And I don't discount that many people find joy in random acts of kindness, stopping what they are doing to help the unfortunate, and etc. I guess what it comes down to is how we individually evaluate the significance of people and events in our lives.

Michael

Edited June 21, 2008 by Newberry

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I have no issue with your last post and agree with you fully on all the fundamental parts, except the altruism—I think the boys were acting selfishly to feel good.

Michael

[mvir9]

Since this post and the other are tied, I will respond to both with my own story:

As many of you know, I am a black belt in karate -- at five feet, 3 inches tall and 115 pounds. As you might guess, I am a bit of an underdog in a male-dominated sport. During one competition, I was against a male. He babied me through the fight, because I was a girl. I won -- and refused the trophy. It is hard to explain how livid I was that this guy would see me as so inferior that he would baby me through the fight. Losing wasn't a problematic scenario for me . . . but winning when I didn't deserve to WAS horribly problematic. If I couldn't earn it on my own, I didn't want it. Period.

On the flip side, I fought a different man, several years later, who respected me enough to fight me with everything he had (yes, he was a fellow black belt). I gave him a black eye, and happily walked away with the trophy.

My suggestion for the baseball story is that the boy's father, in true kindness, should have tried to foster a sense of REAL accomplishment in his son. Even mentally-impaired individuals have thresholds for success, and it is their within their parent's responsibility to find challenges that their children can take on and succeed at. This true accomplishment will last much longer than the fleeting happiness that a one-time, faked experience could ever last. The game was the father's cop-out. Instead of helping his son find true accomplishment, he asked others to pretend a successful experience for his son. As a mother, I find this unforgivable.

I have great admiration for the Pete Sampras story. There is enormous kindness in Michael's willingness to lose a game at the price of fostering the success of another. Most importantly, the success was not faked -- it was real, and it was earned. One value was exchanged for an equal or greater value. I don't see the same thing in the baseball story. Instead, the baseball story shows a value given up for a lesser (fleeting) value with no substance.

As well, I need to add that the baseball story is one great big Appeal to Emotion. Of course it is sad to see children who are mentally impaired. Of course it is sad that they cannot have experiences that other, mentally unimpaired children have. And, yes, it is kind to reach out to children who suffer due to no fault of their own. The question is "HOW" do we reach out? Do we simply react to the sadness of the boy's situation? Or, do we take a step back and think, "Is this the best way to give this boy true happiness?"

Faking reality is not the answer for me. Instead, it would be nice to see a young boy hold open a door for a mentally impaired child, or to help him open his locker at school. If he is really determined to go out of his way to help the boy, he could befriend him -- reading books and/or playing games with him at his house. These things are much more substantial -- they are real -- and they will have a lasting impact on the boy and his life.

[rush242]

As many of you know, I am a black belt in karate -- at five feet, 3 inches tall and 115 pounds. As you might guess, I am a bit of an underdog in a male-dominated sport. During one competition, I was against a male. He babied me through the fight, because I was a girl. I won -- and refused the trophy. It is hard to explain how livid I was that this guy would see me as so inferior that he would baby me through the fight.

Isn't is possible that he just didn't want to hurt you?

I have female friend who is about an inch taller than you, who is a black belt in something or other. At parties or with friends or wherever, she always wants to show how the other women how "safe" she is because she has a black belt. Almost invariably after a few seconds she's on the ground and it's just a squirm fest. That's not to say she hasn't landed any blows, she has, but neither those nor her cute moves are enough to stop me from grabbing her.

The point being, he might also have babied you through the fight because he didn't want to hurt you. I don't baby my friend, but I don't certainly don't unload on her--she would get hurt, even though she knows how to fight. Well, in a ring anyway. I don't see her as inferior, but I know how badly I could hurt her, so I don't do anything but pin her down.

[Judith]

We both knew that if he went back to his two-hander, that would give us what we needed to win. All I need do was tell him to use his two-hander. But I knew why he was changing over to the one-hander-- he wanted to follow in the footsteps of his tennis heroes. It was now or never. If he didn’t keep to the one-hander, he would never have the fortitude to make the change. Through the tears and frustration, he kept to the one-hander, even though we both wanted to win.

In one rally, I put up a poorly executed defensive lob right into the smashing zone of the Goliath, and my tiny partner was left unprotected right in the path of the hardest, fastest smash of the day, aimed right at his chest. Faster than you could blink, the kid ducked, whipped his racket around to protect his face, connected with the ball, ricocheted the ball with an increase in velocity for an outright winner. It was the most spectacular shot I had ever seen in tennis.

Unfortunately, we didn’t win.

See, to me this part of the story is almost analogous to the one Michael told. You didn't win. In the other thread, it seemed to me that you were arguing that winning was the most important part of the game. Here, you chose to pursue something different. There, the boys chose to pursue something different. The "something" in each case was different, but it was chosen and not regretted. And it was to give a certain individual a certain experience.

SEVERAL years ago???? ~Several~ years ago you were playing with a 12/13-year-old Pete Sampras?

Uh-huh. Yeah, and I'm not about to become 60 (next Friday), I'm merely forty-nineteen. :-)

Pete Sampras is 36 years old (born summer 1971). You were playing with him 23 years ago. In my book, that's "several" PLUS TWENTY.

C'mon, Roger, "several" implies WAY more than three. I can easily see it encompassing 23, especially as a middle-aged person myself. Twenty-three years ago seems like yesterday to me. I'd expect this complaint from a 20 year old, but not from someone older than me!

Isn't is possible that he just didn't want to hurt you?

I have female friend who is about an inch taller than you, who is a black belt in something or other. At parties or with friends or wherever, she always wants to show how the other women how "safe" she is because she has a black belt. Almost invariably after a few seconds she's on the ground and it's just a squirm fest. That's not to say she hasn't landed any blows, she has, but neither those nor her cute moves are enough to stop me from grabbing her.

The point being, he might also have babied you through the fight because he didn't want to hurt you. I don't baby my friend, but I don't certainly don't unload on her--she would get hurt, even though she knows how to fight. Well, in a ring anyway. I don't see her as inferior, but I know how badly I could hurt her, so I don't do anything but pin her down.

That is, of course, a possible interpretation of Virginia's experience, but if it was the guy's motivation, it was inappropriate in a sports tournament. Your female friend is acting really inappropriately by attempting to show off her black belt abilities in social situations; fighting is a serious thing, and people get hurt doing it. She could hurt people, and she could get hurt. It's about as appropriate as waving a loaded gun around at a party. Demonstrating techniques is one thing, but there's no way to come to a win/lose conclusion without fighting all-out, and tournament fighting is very different from street brawling.

Judith

[rush242]

That is, of course, a possible interpretation of Virginia's experience, but if it was the guy's motivation, it was inappropriate in a sports tournament. Your female friend is acting really inappropriately by attempting to show off her black belt abilities in social situations; fighting is a serious thing, and people get hurt doing it. She could hurt people, and she could get hurt. It's about as appropriate as waving a loaded gun around at a party. Demonstrating techniques is one thing, but there's no way to come to a win/lose conclusion without fighting all-out, and tournament fighting is very different from street brawling.

Judith

Which is always my point to my friend--she seems mightily convinced that the type of person who would attack her is completely unprepared for her to fight back and is utterly incapable of withstanding blows as he drags her to the ground and overpowers her. She's dead wrong.

And you're right Judith, while it may have been "inappropriate" in a tourney, he may not have cared at the point. His thought might have been, "crap, I have to fight the little female to win this--skrew it."

My point, and your comment reminded me that I entirely forgot to make it (heh), was that each of us that commented on the baseball game is seeing that game in a light that is most supportive of the position we're taking. IF it happened, of course.

One of the first things I learned as an interrogator was NOT EVER to fall into the trap of ascribing my motivations, thoughts, and ideas to others--because I could never hope to learn much by, in essence, interrogating myself. Similarly, I can't color that team as I see fit to make my point.

Some of those kids would probably take Newberry's side. Some of them would probably take Michael's side. Some of them would probably want to kick the ass of the hyper-competitive kid who whined about the cripple, or vice versa.

[mvir9]

As many of you know, I am a black belt in karate -- at five feet, 3 inches tall and 115 pounds. As you might guess, I am a bit of an underdog in a male-dominated sport. During one competition, I was against a male. He babied me through the fight, because I was a girl. I won -- and refused the trophy. It is hard to explain how livid I was that this guy would see me as so inferior that he would baby me through the fight.

Isn't is possible that he just didn't want to hurt you?

I have female friend who is about an inch taller than you, who is a black belt in something or other. At parties or with friends or wherever, she always wants to show how the other women how "safe" she is because she has a black belt. Almost invariably after a few seconds she's on the ground and it's just a squirm fest. That's not to say she hasn't landed any blows, she has, but neither those nor her cute moves are enough to stop me from grabbing her.

The point being, he might also have babied you through the fight because he didn't want to hurt you. I don't baby my friend, but I don't certainly don't unload on her--she would get hurt, even though she knows how to fight. Well, in a ring anyway. I don't see her as inferior, but I know how badly I could hurt her, so I don't do anything but pin her down.

That kind of kindness is disrespect. It is my body, and my risk to take. I'm no fool. I understand that injury is a possibility in karate -- of course it is a possibility. However, that is why I train so hard, and that is why I can and do often win the matches. I have not been hurt too often in karate, but when I have, the injuries have been mistakes on my own part (dropping my hands, throwing a strike off balance, etc.). If I fight properly, I won't get hurt -- even against a guy three times my size. Actually, my speed and flexibility tends to frighten off the men that I do spar. Have you ever broken a men's athletic cup? I have . . . several times, and I have fun doing it. One guy bought steel re-inforcement for his equipment! I got a good laugh out of it.

Now, consider this:

Karate is intended for self-defense training. If my opponent treats me as if I'm a fragile object, and that is all I train with, how well do you think I will be prepared for a REAL attack, by a very eager, angry man?

[mvir9]

That is, of course, a possible interpretation of Virginia's experience, but if it was the guy's motivation, it was inappropriate in a sports tournament. Your female friend is acting really inappropriately by attempting to show off her black belt abilities in social situations; fighting is a serious thing, and people get hurt doing it. She could hurt people, and she could get hurt. It's about as appropriate as waving a loaded gun around at a party. Demonstrating techniques is one thing, but there's no way to come to a win/lose conclusion without fighting all-out, and tournament fighting is very different from street brawling.

Judith

I completely agree with this. In my 27 years of experience in karate, I have found that the people (men and women alike) who like to "show off their moves" in social situations tend to be the people with the least ability. People would often harass me (growing up, anyway) to show them a move, or "how would you defend this?," but I found it horribly improper and I walked away. My response: "If you want to learn karate, go take a class." Luckily, as a mom with two kids, people don't ask me to "show my moves" as often now!

[mvir9]

Some of those kids would probably take Newberry's side. Some of them would probably take Michael's side. Some of them would probably want to kick the ass of the hyper-competitive kid who whined about the cripple, or vice versa.

Okay, I found this fairly funny (honestly, not sarcastically). ;)

I agree, that each individual would have a particular take on the situation. But, does that make the morality or lack thereof a subjective determination?

And, the boys did give the mentally impaired child a "false win" when they allowed him to make a homerun that he never would have gotten on his own steam. That is why the comparison is being made.

In Michael Newberry's story, he never falsified a win for Pete Sampras. Rather, he let him fail on his own steam, and this failure was a very big learning experience. Failure can often be a better teacher than success, but it is also how we, with dogged determination, reach success.

The boy in the baseball story didn't reach true success, because his experience was faked. Imagine how good he felt with the home run, and the false sense of success it gave him. Now, imagine him the next time he comes across a baseball game with his dad . . . "Hey, dad, I would like to play again." His father will tell him no (knowing that a like experience isn't going to happen), or he will ask the new boys and be rejected. The little boy won't understand . . . "But, I'm GOOD at it, dad. I hit a homerun on my first try." Either the dad perpetuates the lie for the rest of the boy's life, or he tells him the truth and crushes him.

If, on the other hand, the dad would have thought of something challenging for his son, like building a fort in the back yard, and helped him and encouraged him along the way, then when the boy finished the fort, he would have something true, something substantial, to take pride in -- a success. No false reality. No false sense of confidence. All of it would be real, and for him to hold close to his heart as long as he lived.

*Edit -- I spelled Sampras' name wrong!

Edited June 22, 2008 by Virginia Murr

[tjohnson]

When children are quite young one often (at least I did ) exagerates praise for their accomplishments or "let's them win" as a means of encouraging them. Is this "faking reality" ? I suppose. Is it bad for them? I wouldn't think a little of it would hurt.

Edited June 22, 2008 by general semanticist

[Mikee]

"If I fight properly, I won't get hurt -- even against a guy three times my size. Actually, my speed and flexibility tends to frighten off the men that I do spar. Have you ever broken a men's athletic cup? I have . . . several times, and I have fun doing it. One guy bought steel re-inforcement for his equipment! I got a good laugh out of it."

It's embarrassing reading bullshit like this. Virginia, I hope you never run into anyone who really wishes you ill.

[mvir9]

When children are quite young one often (at least I did ) exagerates praise for their accomplishments or "let's them win" as a means of encouraging them. Is this "faking reality" ? I suppose. Is it bad for them? I wouldn't think a little of it would hurt.

If there is a possibility of future achievement, then I understand your reasoning.

[mvir9]

"If I fight properly, I won't get hurt -- even against a guy three times my size. Actually, my speed and flexibility tends to frighten off the men that I do spar. Have you ever broken a men's athletic cup? I have . . . several times, and I have fun doing it. One guy bought steel re-inforcement for his equipment! I got a good laugh out of it."

It's embarrassing reading bullshit like this. Virginia, I hope you never run into anyone who really wishes you ill.

I've been attacked, and I had no problem defending myself. Thank you for your concern, however.

[Mikee]

"If I fight properly, I won't get hurt -- even against a guy three times my size. Actually, my speed and flexibility tends to frighten off the men that I do spar. Have you ever broken a men's athletic cup? I have . . . several times, and I have fun doing it. One guy bought steel re-inforcement for his equipment! I got a good laugh out of it."

It's embarrassing reading bullshit like this. Virginia, I hope you never run into anyone who really wishes you ill.

I've been attacked, and I had no problem defending myself. Thank you for your concern, however.

That is a somewhat more defensible assertion depending on the circumstances. What is not defensible is your original statement. "If I fight properly... etc", yes, if "fight properly" includes running like hell. "My speed and flexibility tends to frighten off the men I do spar." Are you sure you're talking about men here? I've known, and was married to one for a few years, very accomplished women martial artists. I have a great deal of respect for them, they would never make the statements you are making. As to breaking several men's athletic cups, extremely unlikely. I've heard of that happening once maybe in about 40 years due to a defective cup. It's not easy hitting a "home run" to a man's groin. It is even harder to break a cup with a bare foot when much of the force of the blow is being absorbed by the man's body. Here's an experiment you could do: Tape a cup to a heavy bag. Kick the cup anyway you like to break it. Repeat. Post the video. As to your invitation to come to Illinois to one of your classes, I respectfully decline. I'm sure you could give a very impressive demonstration. Believe me I know how much work and effort goes into learning a martial art. Just stick to reality.

[rush242]

That kind of kindness is disrespect. It is my body, and my risk to take. I'm no fool. I understand that injury is a possibility in karate -- of course it is a possibility. However, that is why I train so hard, and that is why I can and do often win the matches. I have not been hurt too often in karate, but when I have, the injuries have been mistakes on my own part (dropping my hands, throwing a strike off balance, etc.). If I fight properly, I won't get hurt -- even against a guy three times my size.

Well, my point (when I finally made it, heh) was that it was disrespect to YOU maybe, but that doesn't mean he saw it that way. He probably thought otherwise.

Now, consider this: Karate is intended for self-defense training. If my opponent treats me as if I'm a fragile object, and that is all I train with, how well do you think I will be prepared for a REAL attack, by a very eager, angry man?

One, that won't be all that you train with, we're just talking about that one guy. Two, given my experiences in the Army, I'm not convinced that karate, et cetera are necessarily all that effective in dealing with experienced street fighters--especially if one's experience is always in a ring.

[mvir9]

Just stick to reality.

I suggest the same for you. Have a wonderful day!

[mvir9]

Well, my point (when I finally made it, heh) was that it was disrespect to YOU maybe, but that doesn't mean he saw it that way. He probably thought otherwise.

I understand this. But, my only concern was that it was disrespectful to me. Besides, he missed out on a great opportunity to spar a well-trained female opponent. The benefit for him would have been to spar someone with speed and flexibility as opposed to strength, which most male fighters rely upon (because most don't have much speed or flexibility).

It reminds me a bit of the David and Goliath story -- secularized, of course. Brains vs. brawn. I am one of those who believes that brains can overcome brawn in almost every situation. Then again, maybe I'm simply an optimist.

[Mikee]

Just stick to reality.

I suggest the same for you. Have a wonderful day!

I have been trying to be nice. You are either a liar or you have been lied to and you believed it. Either way your fantasies are just that, fantasies. Have whatever kind of a day you can manage.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I agree, that each individual would have a particular take on the situation. But, does that make the morality or lack thereof a subjective determination?

And, the boys did give the mentally impaired child a "false win" when they allowed him to make a homerun that he never would have gotten on his own steam. That is why the comparison is being made.

Virginia,

Much has been made of faking reality not being good for a mentally impaired child. Let's check that premise. I suspect that those who claim this have not had much experience with mentally incompetent people.

Here is an experience that most everyone can have with lesser minds: dogs. There is a game I usually play with dogs. I get a bone or rag or something that is in his mouth and try to pull it away from him. I start faking being aggressive and make a great show of the effort I am employing. Then I let him win.

The dog always loves it and can't get enough.

I have also noticed that when another person is around who insists on winning all the time with the dog, he is not very popular with the dog for playing that game when I am around. The dog wants to play with me.

And I have also noticed that the dog can be quite ferocious in real situations, so there is no impariment whatsoever by my teaching it to fake reality, whatever that means in that situation. On a deep level, I think the dog even knows I am letting it win, just like I think that on a deep level, Shaya knew he was no real baseball hero in the normal sense of the word.

In other words, there is more than just competition going on at the time. There is also a recognition of intentions, approval of one another, and a whole set of dynamics at play. They are reality, too, right? Isn't ignoring them when judging what people (or dogs) are thinking a form of faking reality?

That is why my position in this discussion has been when a person judges these stories and talks about what is important to him and what is in his mind, I take him at his word and have no criticism. He knows his own mental reality better than I or anyone else ever could. When he starts talking about what is in other people's minds and insinuates that this is evil or suboptimal in moral terms, but leaves out a big chunk of reality, I contest it.

I have no problem with speculating about what is in other people's minds, but doing so while ignoring or brushing aside a part of reality leads to very inaccurate speculation.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's embarrassing reading bullshit like this. Virginia, I hope you never run into anyone who really wishes you ill.

Mike,

Doesn't this sound just a wee bit condescending to you?

I have been trying to be nice.

By being condescending? Come on.

I would like to suggest another form of stating your disagreement if you really wanted to be nice. There are many options available and some, which incidentally are nice, are even more emphatic and demand more reality-wise than the one you chose.

Here is one: "I have never seen anything like that and find a hard time believing it. Could you please give me an example or something I can see with my own eyes, or so I can at least understand what you are getting at?"

Your request for making a video was reasonable, but I think it would have been far more effective in "nice" language. By using bluster, you undermined it rhetoric-wise. You put emphasis on the person and not the fact.

(btw - I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed opinion about the subject one way or another. Kung-fu and Steven Seagal movies are not very instructive in that respect. All I have is my opinion. I like you and I like Virginia—I like you both a lot and I think are you both independent thinkers with high integrity, for whatever value that has here.)

Michael

[Mikee]

Mike,

"It's embarrassing reading bullshit like this. Virginia, I hope you never run into anyone who really wishes you ill."

Doesn't this sound just a wee bit condescending to you?

Perhaps. It had to be said. I'm not the most diplomatic when my bullshit meter is pegged in the red.

Your request for making a video was reasonable, but I think it would have been far more effective in "nice" language. By using bluster, you undermined it rhetoric-wise. You put emphasis on the person and not the fact.

Virginia's characterization of her self defense skills and experiences is misleading at best. It is useful to the extent that it can get paying customers in the door. Customer's who sometimes waste months of their time, money and hard work before disbelieving the fantastic claims. I suggest instead a Krav Maga school for practical self defense, or a combined Crossfit/MMA school to get in the best shape of your life and learn practical self defense.

Michael, these stories of almost "supernatural powers" are snake oil. The "demonstrations" are choreographed dances.